Talk:Morley (cigarette)

Weeds

Are we positive that she is smoking Morley's? I'm pretty sure the ciagrettes in this episode of Weeds were the 'More' brand. More are a real life cigarette known for being very long (120mm) and having a brown paper instead of white. I think she even mentions in the episode something along the lines of "I used to be thin and long and brown just like these cigarettes." Worth checking into for someone that has the DVD's if not I can probably find out on Netflix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Washbrook45 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Outer Limits

Can anyone confirm the Outer Limits part? I'd prefer not to have to go buy the DVDs.

Well, I went ahead and added the relevant DVD to my list on Blockbuster.com and it should arrive tomorrow. So I'll hopefully be able to confirm it tomorrow. Presuming it's in the episode Resurrection anyways.

Aside: Marleys

Wasn't there a persistent rumour that one of the major tobacco companies registered Marley (after reggae musician and famous pot-smoker Bob Marley) as a trademark for cigarettes, for use in the event of marijuana being legalised? Acb 01:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Origin?

The important thing that the article currently lacks is: where was the fictional brand _first_ used? Was it the X-Files? Or were the X-Files copying an earlier show?

I agree. There's no real mention of its origins in fiction. The X-Files seems to be the earliest piece to use them, so if they were the first and originators, it needs to be more specific on this, as the article currently does little more than just list its onscreen use. --Bacteria 10:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Doubly agree. I'd never heard of it before X-Files, and there seem not to be any references here that predate X-Files, so I would tend to assume that all references to Morley cigarettes are either a nod to X-Files or unsurprising serendipity. --Alfoor 21:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems that Morleys first appeared in The Twilight Zone episode "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet." The design on that cigarette carton was seen again on a pack on Mission: Impossible in episode "Operation 'Heart'". The second image in this article also shows that design. I don't know where the red pack started, but it could be The X-files. - LA @ 20:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Spike or James Marsters?

Is the quote "We smoke Morleys. We both smoke the same brand. We're the only two characters on TV that do," from Spike as Spike or James Marsters as the actor? The entry is a bit vague on this.

MSTCrow 13:32, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Well, considering how I don't recall Spike ever saying that in the approximate seven years he's appeared onscreen, I'm going to have to assume that it was Marsters. --Bacteria 10:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Did Spike ever describe himself as a character on TV? —Tamfang 06:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

spot the packet

Given that packets of Morleys are "seen" in a number of flicks, I take it that the package design is consistent? Is there a picture? —Tamfang 19:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I found this link http://www.indyprops.com/pp-morley.htm It has a few pictures of the morley pack.

That's a fan-made replica of a Morley pack from The X-Files, so it doesn't prove anything about Morley's origins or whether the design is consistent between different films and series. GagHalfrunt 10:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Context?

Who created this brand? Why is it used in all of these shows? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Just watching "The House on Greenapple Road." About one hour into the movie a character walking out of a police station pilfers a pack of... Morleys. Seems to be the oldest reference. Erislover 22:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, not the oldest. See my comment under Origin. - LA @ 20:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Pack designs

There are two pack designs. The "white pack" has a blocky horse on it. The "red pack" looks similar to Marlboros. LA

Sightings

These are confirmed sightings.

White Pack

• Twilight Zone, "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet"
• Mission: Impossible "Operation 'Heart'"
• 200 Cigarettes

Red Pack

• The X-files
• Buffy the Vampire Slayer
• Criminal Minds "North Mammon"
• Law & Order "The Fire This Time" 2001. While being arrested, a pack of Morleys is pulled from the pocket of a suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.236.106 (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Csm01.jpg

Image:Csm01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Where is it identified as prop?

Please show me where this reliable source[1] indicates that it is discussing a prop and not Morley cigs? And where are these multiple sources that indicate that they are not herbal?-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The article describes how the actor has given up "cigarettes" so, like William B. Davis, he "turned to the same solution for their on-screen inhaling" which is those herbal cigarettes. The packaging for the fictional Morleys shows them as "Class A Cigarettes" and the X-Files episode about the fictional cigarettes and their manufacture by Morley Tobacco, as documented, repeatedly emphasizes that they are made from tobacco, albeit genetically modified tobacco in one variant. They key here is the difference between the prop and the fictional object it represents which is both well documented and clearly spelled out, even in the Zap2It article. - Dravecky (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice interpretation, but that is not what the article actually says. ""Horrible, horrible herbal cigarettes," says Marsters. "We smoke Morley's. We both smoke the same brand. We're the only two characters on TV that do." Where does the differentiation from Morleys and the Herbals come in the reliable source? -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You lopped off the whole paragraph that leads up to that statement. It reads, "His alter ego, actor James Marsters, has sworn off cigarettes. "I have," he says, "for the last year. I'm on the patch." Marsters now finds himself in the same situation as William B. Davis, an ex-smoker who had to puff continuously for his "X-Files" role as the enigmatic Cigarette Smoking Man. Both actors turned to the same solution for their on-screen inhaling. "Horrible, horrible herbal cigarettes," says Marsters."

That seems pretty cut and dried to me and, given all of the other reliably sourced information that these are standard cigarettes made from tobacco, and further attempts to alter this article based on selective reading and a skewed interpretation in the face of your failed attempt to get this article deleted seems to border on attempted vandalism. - Dravecky (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Dont threaten me. I am showing the most substative piece of evidence that was used to show notability and using the actual portion of the article that refers to the topic at hand. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Threaten"? You're plucking a single line badly out of context and spinning a new, demonstrably false conclusion from it to damage an article you wanted deleted. The only thing threatened here is the integrity of this article. - Dravecky (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"I dont smoke cigarretes. I smoke horrible horrible herbal cigarretes. I smoke Morleys. Davis and I are the only ones who smoke them." You are the one who is interpreting other that what is said in the source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You're stringing together your own paraphrasing interpolated in such a way as to make a point that is not made in the original article, is contradicted by the other sources, and is demonstrably not true. I have been assuming good faith in this discussion but perhaps that faith is misplaced. - Dravecky (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Since "His alter ego, actor James Marsters, has sworn off cigarettes. "I have," he says, "for the last year. I'm on the patch." Marsters now finds himself in the same situation as William B. Davis, an ex-smoker who had to puff continuously for his "X-Files" role as the enigmatic Cigarette Smoking Man. Both actors turned to the same solution for their on-screen inhaling." is clearly NOT about Morley, and if as you claim ":::::"I dont smoke cigarretes. I smoke horrible horrible herbal cigarretes" is about the prop and not Morley cigarretes. And if "Davis and I are the only ones who smoke them" is as you claim contradicted by other sources, then the only remaining "substantial" coverage of this reliable source regarding the topic of the article is "We smoke Morley's. We both smoke the same brand." Is that your position? -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You're being completely ridiculous about this. The fictional brand "Morley" is a non-herbal brand of cigarettes, as is obvious from the quotes about it. The ACTUAL cigarettes smoked during the filming of the shows are herbal cigarettes because the actors who are doing the smoking do not want to poison themselves (as much) any longer. It is fairly clear that this is the case if you read the article properly. If you go to http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0205657/bio and read the first two "trivia" entries you'll see that William B. Davis quit smoking regular cigarettes in the 1970s and smoked herbal cigarettes during the filming of The X Files. This does not mean that the fictional brand had to be rebranded as herbal cigarettes. There's just no reason for it. StuartGilbert (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• 'Skinner: "Dr James Scobie, age 44. R&D biochemist with Morley Tobacco. If he were alive as of 26 minutes ago he'd be giving testimony against his former employer before a federal grand jury."'
• "These days on the show, Davis explains, 'I smoke herbal cigarettes. They are awful, but they're not addictive.' But that took a decision. 'I used to be a smoker. I used to smoke a lot. And when they offered me the part they offered me the real cigarettes and the herbal cigarettes. And I said 'Ha! I'm an actor; gimme the real cigarettes.' So for the first episode, I actually smoked real cigarettes. And the next episode, I smoked real cigarettes. And then I found myself sitting at home thinking, 'Boy, I sure wish they'd call me for another episode.' That's when I figured I'd better go with those herbal cigarettes.'"

So it seems that the Morley is a TOBACCO company, not a HERBAL CIGARETTE company and that the actor was offered real (Tobacco) cigarettes or prop (herbal) ones.

The other assumption to be made is that Morley changed from Tobacco to Herbal cigarettes between CSM's second and third appearence. And were still involved with Tobacco in season 7. Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, since when did words of fictional characters become reliable sources for items that appear in other completely non-related fictional stories? -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

William B. Davis is a famous acting teacher and a celebrated Canadian character actor, perhaps best known for portraying the Cigarette Smoking Man on The X-Files. William B. Davis is not a fictional character. - Dravecky (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

William B. Davis, famous acting teacher and a celebrated Canadian character actor, is not quoted as saying anything about Morley. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

When discussing a fictional item and within a fictional universe, then fictional characters are a primary source. Skinner is a fictional character in the The X-Files universe, and thus his references to Morley Tobacco are legit. And the Marsters quote was about The X-Files and Buffy, so it isn't "non-related fictional stories". Duggy 1138 (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

But this article is not about Morley cigarettes within the X-Files fictional universe. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Morley cigarettes as they appear in a number of films and television series, including The X-Files and Buffy The Vampire Slayer. Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

But you cannot use what fictional characters say about the fictional brand in one series as a reliable source for the use of the fictional brand anywhere other than that particular fictional universe. Such usage falls WAY into the land of original research.-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, and you can't use a quote by an actor on one series talking about the herbal cigarettes he used when he quit smoking for the use of the fictional brand anywhere even that particular fictional universe. Duggy 1138 (talk) 07:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source," If that is what the source says, that is what the article should say. You may argue that Zip2it is not a reliable source or that the quote needs to be attributed to Marsters within the article for readers to judge how much validity to give the statement, but Wikipedia is merely a collection of what others have produced and if no one has produced information that contradicts the Marsters source, well, thats what we have for sources to include in the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Some people (myself included) say that Marsters is talking about the Prop. Others (you) say that he is talking about the in-show product. Which means that saying that it means that in Buffy it is herbal cigarettes isn't verified by that quote. And Marsters isn't an authority on The X-Files.

Meanwhile a source (the show itself) says that within The X-Files it is Tobbaco.Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If in his "horrible horrible herbal" comments, Marster is NOT talking about Morely, then we are back to the fact that the "substantial" discussion of the topic in this source is actually limited to "We smoke Morley's. We both smoke the same brand." Agreed? -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear from the fact he mentions going from talking about going from smoking tobacco to herbal cigarettes when he quit smoking in real life makes it clear he is initially talking about the prop. So, yes, the point of the citation is to verify that they used them in Buffy. Duggy 1138 (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Nightmare at 20,000 Feet

I've added a mention of Morley Cigarettes on the Nightmare at 20,000 Feet page. Duggy 1138 (talk) 10:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Rename to List article

Given the aparent number of primary source appearances and lack of secondary sources that actually discuss the topic, is there any opposition to renaming the article something along the lines of List of Morley cigarette appearances in popular culture? -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing about the article the other day. I don't object, unless someone can find some non-list content to add. Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I do strongly object given that this article need not be purely a list and that "List of Morley cigarette appearances in popular culture" is a dramatically less likely search term than "Morley (cigarette)" I can't see how that name change could benefit the encyclopedia. I do see it as a way to get this renominated as a "non-notable list" as an end-around to the recent failed AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we certainly need it to be more than a non-notable list then. Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Morley (cigarette)" becomes a re-direct until there is actual thrid party/secodnary source material found and written up. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The consensus of the AfD that closed just 2 days ago was that this article meets the notability standards, as is. Renaming to change the standards by which this would be judged and including red-meat code words in the name stretches my assumption of good faith that you're not pushing this change to accomplish the eventual deletion your "red pen of doom" failed to accomplish with the original AfD nomination. - Dravecky (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The easy way for you to prevent any potential deletion is to find any of the claimed reliable sources that discuss the actual topic of the article in a substantial way and include that information. My request for deletion was based on Wikipedia article guidelines that article topics should be about notabale subjects. People claimed that this topic was notable but have yet to present actual evidence in the article. When I attempted to add the information from the one source that was provided, you have vociferously claimed that that information is inaccurate or not actually about the subject. It is hard for me to see good faith in your actions. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I started this article over 3 and a half years ago and I can't believe how much time has been spent on trying to get this article removed from Wikipedia. It's been determined that the article should be kept as it is. I see no positive that can come from reclassifying it as a list, and if it meets the standard required to keep it as an article then there's no reason to suggest it. Surely all of this time could be much more productively spent on articles that do not meet the requirements. StuartGilbert (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes you have a passion for this article, but back to the question that i have been repeatedly asking: Do you have reliable sources that provide substantive coverage of the topic? -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no real passion for the article at all. I've not really touched it in the 3 and a half years since I created it. I just don't think there's any advantage to be gained from classifying it as a list now, to have to change it back at a later date. What sort of coverage would you call substantive? StuartGilbert (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Substantial coverage would be more than one line saying "such and such a character picked up a Morley cigarette" - it would comment on the fact that that this fictional brand is used by multiple media franchises across production studios. It would interpret that the packaging and name are take-offs of Marlboro. It would discuss discuss the fictional Morley brand in the context of other fictional companies. Any ofthe things that wikipedia editors have done through their original research but have not brought in pubished sources to verify. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I see, so you think more information should be added to the Wikipedia article. Just a quick thought, the text you've written in your previous comment is pretty close to being substantive content. All it would take is a little padding out. Then rather than getting a potentially helpful (for someone) article removed you would have contributed in a non-destructive way. If you're opposed to contributing to the article directly then I'll go ahead and fill it out myself in a little while. StuartGilbert (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Continuing to pound on this referenced article which just passed an AfD as "keep" less than four days ago is surely not the most pressing problem in the whole of Wikipedia. If the intent is truly the betterment of the project, divert your energies into adding a properly formatted {{WikiProject Biography}} tags to some of the thousands of bio talk pages that lack one—then revisit this article in six months. Another AfD before then would be improper at best and it would free up the rest of us to return to our own gnomish work. Just a thought. - Dravecky (talk) 09:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This is NOT a well referenced article and you are not my mommy to tell me what I should be doing. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see this discussion is remaining so civil and mature. - Dravecky (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Things this article needs...

• A definite source for Twilight Zone being the first appearence, or if not, an earlier reference.
• Some information on Marley as a nick name for Marlbaro.
• Some reference, if possible, as to who designed the original prop, and if possible, why.
• Some information on why it was used for later films. (For example since The X-Files, many cases will have been inspired by or a reference to that.)
• A note of any other false tobacco products used in the lists films (As well as Morleys, XXXX and YYYY are also mentioned...).
• Any other Morley details mentioned in specific films or shows(for example, anything in the X-Brand episode of The X-Files that talks about Morley Tobacco and their products.)

Any other ideas? Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I included a link to prop cigarette page of the [StudioGraphics] website in the External Links section. StudioGraphics is part of Independent Studio Services, a company that produces props for the film and television industry. Red Pen of Doom undid the edit and cited "per WP:EL not advert" as the reason. I added it to the External Links section since it wasn't used as a citation in the article, but it did show that Morley is a prop brand of cigarettes produced by at least one prop company. Under Part 1 of WP:ELYES, it could be considered an "offical website." I think it could also fall under Parts 3 and 4 of the section. I didn't think the link was any less valid than the Indyprop.com link. It shows that Morley is a fictional brand used on props rather than an actual brand of herbal cigarettes. I noticed that was a point of confusion based on some past edits to the article.

If you are interested in other fictional tobacco product brands, the StudioGraphics link has other fictional brands that have been created and produced for use in films and television programs. For example, Brezza Cigarettes have been shown in the television series "Lost." Bilson Cigarettes, likely named for the founder of Independent Studio Services, have been seen in the television series "Lost," the 2002 film "May," and the 2006 film "Deja Vu." If you want to consider adding them, or discuss creating a "Fictional Tobacco Product Brand" article, that would be a discussion worth having.

I've done lots of edits on the Heisler Beer article and the Finder-Spyder using the Morley page as a "fictional brand" article template. I noticed Red Pen of Doom did some edits on those pages as well. I would be interested in learning how everyone feels about how fictional brand articles should be handled. APS221 (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Some form of template may not be a bad idea. It'd need things like First Appearance (show and date), Most Notable Appearance (probably The X-Files in this case), List of shows using this brand with characters using this brand... Some stuff along those lines. StuartGilbert (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have sent a message to CBS (the creators of the original series of The Twilight Zone) to see if I can get any information regarding the creation of the prop. I don't expect to get a great deal of information from them, but it's worth a shot. It seems quite likely that the prop was originally created by CBS for The Twilight Zone because of the large number of props used in the show. Most of these would not be existing props from other shows (random space ships, etc.).

It may also be worth finding out the second use of the prop, if possible. I have a feeling it would also be a CBS show, as there was a trend to re-use props from other shows where possible. StuartGilbert (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Space.com not a reliable source?

Hi, I was wondering why you deemed space.com to not be a reliable source. It's owned and operated by Imaginova, which you can read about here: http://www.imaginova.com/company/ When talking about a fictional brand of cigarettes mostly featured in science fiction I think it's a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StuartGilbert (talk • contribs) 12:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

the above post is moved here from my talk page

It is not at all clear that space.com has any type of "editorial board" oversight / peer review etc. as required for reliable sources. The particular "source" appears to be a blog posting, which are clearly precluded as reliable sources.

And while our verification policy is most strictly applied to living people, there is no exception that articles about minor fictional props used mostly in science fiction are immune from our policies.-- The Red Pen of Doom 13:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetical vs Chronological

I know alphabetical makes appearences easier to find, but I think that chronological works better for the page. It gives context to the appearence, the growth and the influences of the various appearences. Opinions? Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

a sortable table? I dont know how exactly to set one up, but a table would help bring consistency to the data. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Took much information for a table, I think. I just think that chronologically makes more sense. Duggy 1138 (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's visible in S Darko, at the end

underneath the Left folded up shirt sleeve of the character that drives the red sports car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.36.13 (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Doctors

On the April 7th, 2011 epidode,the hosts were speaking on heartburn causes, and the camera panned across an assortment of products. There on the table was a Morley pack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.70.103.149 (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The Doctors is a non-fiction show, right? That seems very funny to me that they would use a fictional brand of cigarettes to illustrate a point. (Not that I am doubting you.) Shadzane (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The Walking Dead

The infamous brand showed up in the just aired episode (October 30, 2011). If I forget to come back when I know the name of the episode, someone may wish to add it. Wickedjacob (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed for "laundry list" clean-up need tag on article

@Trivialist: Hi! Noticed your newly added "laundry list" tag on the article (this page is on my watchlist from previous edits). Can you explain in more detail what specific issues you find, so they can possibly be addressed?

RECENT EDIT: I just now changed the title of the section listing appearances from "List of appearances" to just "Appearances," which seems more descriptive in line with common headings for listed items, like Filmography, Bibliography, and so forth. I also added a brief lead to the section.

Thanks! --Tsavage (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: In light of the changes made after the tagging (renaming the section containing the list, and providing a section lead to put the items following in clear context, as noted in Recent Edit, above), and two months passing with no reply as to a more detailed description of the problem per the tagging editor, I've removed the umbrella "laundry list" tag. --Tsavage (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Pack designs 2

What happened to differentiating the appearances by pack/carton design? There are at least 3 different pack designs. There is the 20,000 Feet design, The X-files design, and one other I have seen so far. Wouldn't the pack design be important to see the evolution of this fictional brand? The image on the article shows only The X-Files design. LA (T) @ 21:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Touched by an Angel

There was a carton of Morley's in the cupboard . S9/Ep16 2003 called Song for my Father. Just saw it on Decades. Jynxxed (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Morley (cigarette). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19991011212836/http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1998/oct/10-02-98/arts/arts6.html to http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1998/oct/10-02-98/arts/arts6.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

"Iconic"

I have removed the word "iconic" from the introduction. I know just about everything is iconic these days, but this is a particularly absurd use of it, well below what should be Wikipedia's standards. Soulnus (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)